They're implemented fine. They chose a particularly poor value for one of the parameters. Your implementation of PBKDF2 is the same regardless of the number of rounds; number of rounds is simply a parameter.
PBKDF2, which the BlackBerry backups use, always uses a salt. One round is a joke, though. The 4096 rounds of WPA aren't really sufficient, and the 1000 rounds of FileVault are really a mistake.
I would bet that it's done by survey. Anyone in the industry would know that losses at nearly every level and non-food uses would make a GDP-like calculation useless.
The encryption itself is just fine (at least, for now). While it's interesting that the data is transmitted in the clear and then encrypted by the backup software, they don't propose exploiting this (which would be an inconvenient attack).
This is simply a brute-force password cracker that's specific to BlackBerry backups. It's not particularly specific, either, as the backups are encrypted with AES and the key is derived from a password using the standard PBKDF2. There are tons of PBKDF2-crackers out there (like coWPAtty). The surprising thing is that they only use single-iteration PBKDF2, which is a joke.
This, incidentally, is what is meant by the statement in TFS that cracking BlackBerry backup passwords is easier than cracking iOS passwords. Difficulty in password cracking (amount of computational time per password) for PBKDF2 is roughly proportional to the number of iterations. IIRC, WPA uses 4096, Apple's FileVault uses 1000, and BlackBerry backups apparently use 1.
In this case, the term organic is referring to organic food and farming. As cyanide is not a food, you're unlikely to be able to get it certified as organic.
For the chemical definition, while "organic" roughly means "containing carbon", a lot of carbon-containing compounds are specifically excluded, including the cyanides.
Cyanide is naturally-occurring, and in a variety of forms, but that's not the same as organic and has no bearing on organic food and farming. Likewise with uranium. Given a broad enough definition, everything is technically all natural -- which is why there are subject-specific definitions of "natural". Nice try, though.
I don't understand why vegetarians use meat substitutes and consume, as you say, soy and wheat germ. There are plenty of vegetarian (and nearly vegan) cultures that have delicious food.
I eat a lot of beef and pork on a regular basis and still don't come close to the national average for meat consumption, which is pretty disturbing.
The summary, of all things, even points out that this proposed legislation is *after* an industry organization published guidelines for exactly how to do this sort of thing.
If only there was some way of taking a single piece of source material and adjusting its loudness at the time of transmission so that different volumes could be selected for different situations.
Alas, apparently the technology to dynamically alter sound data in such a way does not exist.
That's the platform of the Socialist Party of America. It's not the same as a definition of "socialism". A dictionary is quite a good resource for the definition of words, whereas political promises are just about the last place to look for useful, accurate information.
Note that current high-end nVidia processors have ~16 multiprocessors, each of which has 8 "cores". So even using the poor term of "core" (not like a CPU core), GPUs have in the hundreds, not thousands.
Then you're misreading the specs, or reading poorly-written specs.
On general-purpose CPUs, a 2-core processor has two computational devices that operate and are scheduled independently. (One core has multiple computational devices within it, but they're not independently-scheduled.)
Take NVIDIA chips as typical GPU design. You can get the high-level design information from the CUDA documentation. A single graphics card contains a small number of "multiprocessors", which are computational units that are operate and are scheduled independently. At one point in time, the entire multiprocessor is executing only one instruction. Multiprocessors are SIMD: they execute each instruction on large numbers of data elements at the same time. The sequence of instructions operating on one data element goes by the unfortunate name of "thread" (not to be confused with an OS thread), and CUDA calls a block of these a "warp". So a 4-multiprocessor graphics card with 32-thread warps may perform 128 "operations" in a clock cycle, but only 4 distinct, separately-scheduled instructions. To perform all this work, each multiprocessor will have many logic units of different types.
The closest analogue to a CPU core for GPUs is the multiprocessor, as they're independently scheduled and multiple multiprocessors will be placed on the same die.
(Note that nVidia uses the unfortunate term "core" to describe a component of a multiprocessor. Most instructions are executed by a set of 8 "cores" on the multiprocessor. So one instruction executed on a 32-thread warp really takes four steps, being done 8 "instructions" at a time. Sets of 8 thread-instructions aren't scheduled independently, though; only whole warp-instructions. Likewise, the cores on a multiprocessor aren't independently-scheduled and bear little resemblance to CPU cores.)
As to OS resources, many would argue that how the OS behaves in multi-core environments is indeed relevant to the GPU. Witness Grand Central Dispatch and Open CL
When tasks are sent to a GPU via something like OpenCL, the operating system is still not involved in any of the memory or scheduling internals of the GPU.
The relevant bit is that this is about how Linux handles N-core processors. How many processing units are on a graphics card has nothing to do with that problem.
It doesn't. Its resources also aren't managed by your operating system, so how Linux behaves in multicore environments is irrelevant to your GPU's operation.
Syrup is entirely accurate; it's a viscous aqueous solution. Just like maple syrup or simple syrup. It seems conventional to call crystalline sugars "sugar" and sugars in solution "syrup".
It has the same amount of fructose, roughly, as digested sucrose. It's just called high-fructose corn syrup because it has a lot more fructose than regular corn syrup, which is (almost?) entirely glucose.
It's an accurate name. It's called high-fructose corn syrup because it has a lot more fructose than regular corn syrup, which is what HFCS is made from.
To be fair, "corn sugar" is slightly deceptive, in that it's renaming an existing product to make it sound similar to a different, more-desired product, but it's entirely accurate. Glucose, fructose, and sucrose, along with many others, are all sugars.
As usual, the common mistake is made of claiming that the patent is for "choose-your-own-adventure movies". Like any patent, it's for a particular method of displaying and running a choose-your-own-adventure movies (or rather, a class of similar methods).
I'm curious what examples of prior art there are, and whether they actually fall under the claims made in the patent, or if they're simply similar int hat both are "choose-your-own-adventure"-type presentations.
Power is not measured in watts an hour. It's just watts. (Intensity is measured in W/m^2.)
0 dB (sound) is 10^-12 W/m^2. 60 dB is 10^-6 W/m^2. A 4 in. x 3 in. cell phone (with two sides) has an area of about 1.5 * 10^-2 m^2. So such an object subjected to 60 dB of background sound could capture up to 1.5 * 10^-8 W, which is 15 nW.
There is surprisingly little energy in sound. Take, for example, an object loud enough that the sound intensity at a distance of 10 m is 60 dB. The total sound energy output by that object is, then, 4*pi*(10 m)^2 * 10^-6 W/m^2 = about 1 mW.
Slashdot Mirror
That's essentially the same as not using bittorrent. If you can't see arbitrary peers, your peer-to-peer system isn't very effective.
It's called distrusting anything that's not similar to what you're used to, and there's substantial historical precedent for it.
They're implemented fine. They chose a particularly poor value for one of the parameters. Your implementation of PBKDF2 is the same regardless of the number of rounds; number of rounds is simply a parameter.
They don't. They use industry-standard algorithms, and the encryption itself wasn't compromised.
PBKDF2, which the BlackBerry backups use, always uses a salt. One round is a joke, though. The 4096 rounds of WPA aren't really sufficient, and the 1000 rounds of FileVault are really a mistake.
I would bet that it's done by survey. Anyone in the industry would know that losses at nearly every level and non-food uses would make a GDP-like calculation useless.
Yes -- India and China both have regions with vegetarian or near-vegetarian cuisine.
Also, those fake hot dogs are really terrible.
The encryption itself is just fine (at least, for now). While it's interesting that the data is transmitted in the clear and then encrypted by the backup software, they don't propose exploiting this (which would be an inconvenient attack).
This is simply a brute-force password cracker that's specific to BlackBerry backups. It's not particularly specific, either, as the backups are encrypted with AES and the key is derived from a password using the standard PBKDF2. There are tons of PBKDF2-crackers out there (like coWPAtty). The surprising thing is that they only use single-iteration PBKDF2, which is a joke.
This, incidentally, is what is meant by the statement in TFS that cracking BlackBerry backup passwords is easier than cracking iOS passwords. Difficulty in password cracking (amount of computational time per password) for PBKDF2 is roughly proportional to the number of iterations. IIRC, WPA uses 4096, Apple's FileVault uses 1000, and BlackBerry backups apparently use 1.
If you add mushrooms and potato chips, that's a perfectly delicious sandwich with no fake-meat hamburger at all.
No, cyanide is not organic.
In this case, the term organic is referring to organic food and farming. As cyanide is not a food, you're unlikely to be able to get it certified as organic.
For the chemical definition, while "organic" roughly means "containing carbon", a lot of carbon-containing compounds are specifically excluded, including the cyanides.
Cyanide is naturally-occurring, and in a variety of forms, but that's not the same as organic and has no bearing on organic food and farming. Likewise with uranium. Given a broad enough definition, everything is technically all natural -- which is why there are subject-specific definitions of "natural". Nice try, though.
I don't understand why vegetarians use meat substitutes and consume, as you say, soy and wheat germ. There are plenty of vegetarian (and nearly vegan) cultures that have delicious food.
I eat a lot of beef and pork on a regular basis and still don't come close to the national average for meat consumption, which is pretty disturbing.
Effect is also a verb, although less commonly used that way.
It was sarcasm. :-)
The summary, of all things, even points out that this proposed legislation is *after* an industry organization published guidelines for exactly how to do this sort of thing.
If only there was some way of taking a single piece of source material and adjusting its loudness at the time of transmission so that different volumes could be selected for different situations.
Alas, apparently the technology to dynamically alter sound data in such a way does not exist.
That's the platform of the Socialist Party of America. It's not the same as a definition of "socialism". A dictionary is quite a good resource for the definition of words, whereas political promises are just about the last place to look for useful, accurate information.
Note that current high-end nVidia processors have ~16 multiprocessors, each of which has 8 "cores". So even using the poor term of "core" (not like a CPU core), GPUs have in the hundreds, not thousands.
It (the GPU) does according to the specs.
Then you're misreading the specs, or reading poorly-written specs.
On general-purpose CPUs, a 2-core processor has two computational devices that operate and are scheduled independently. (One core has multiple computational devices within it, but they're not independently-scheduled.)
Take NVIDIA chips as typical GPU design. You can get the high-level design information from the CUDA documentation. A single graphics card contains a small number of "multiprocessors", which are computational units that are operate and are scheduled independently. At one point in time, the entire multiprocessor is executing only one instruction. Multiprocessors are SIMD: they execute each instruction on large numbers of data elements at the same time. The sequence of instructions operating on one data element goes by the unfortunate name of "thread" (not to be confused with an OS thread), and CUDA calls a block of these a "warp". So a 4-multiprocessor graphics card with 32-thread warps may perform 128 "operations" in a clock cycle, but only 4 distinct, separately-scheduled instructions. To perform all this work, each multiprocessor will have many logic units of different types.
The closest analogue to a CPU core for GPUs is the multiprocessor, as they're independently scheduled and multiple multiprocessors will be placed on the same die.
(Note that nVidia uses the unfortunate term "core" to describe a component of a multiprocessor. Most instructions are executed by a set of 8 "cores" on the multiprocessor. So one instruction executed on a 32-thread warp really takes four steps, being done 8 "instructions" at a time. Sets of 8 thread-instructions aren't scheduled independently, though; only whole warp-instructions. Likewise, the cores on a multiprocessor aren't independently-scheduled and bear little resemblance to CPU cores.)
As to OS resources, many would argue that how the OS behaves in multi-core environments is indeed relevant to the GPU. Witness Grand Central Dispatch and Open CL
When tasks are sent to a GPU via something like OpenCL, the operating system is still not involved in any of the memory or scheduling internals of the GPU.
The relevant bit is that this is about how Linux handles N-core processors. How many processing units are on a graphics card has nothing to do with that problem.
And the GPU has somewhere around 1600 cores...
It doesn't. Its resources also aren't managed by your operating system, so how Linux behaves in multicore environments is irrelevant to your GPU's operation.
No, the article says the planet is 3x the mass of Earth. That's not the same as having 3x the gravity when standing on its surface.
Syrup is entirely accurate; it's a viscous aqueous solution. Just like maple syrup or simple syrup. It seems conventional to call crystalline sugars "sugar" and sugars in solution "syrup".
It has the same amount of fructose, roughly, as digested sucrose. It's just called high-fructose corn syrup because it has a lot more fructose than regular corn syrup, which is (almost?) entirely glucose.
It's an accurate name. It's called high-fructose corn syrup because it has a lot more fructose than regular corn syrup, which is what HFCS is made from.
To be fair, "corn sugar" is slightly deceptive, in that it's renaming an existing product to make it sound similar to a different, more-desired product, but it's entirely accurate. Glucose, fructose, and sucrose, along with many others, are all sugars.
Probably not ethanol. I suspect, without looking it up, that corn sugars are what are converted into ethanol.
As usual, the common mistake is made of claiming that the patent is for "choose-your-own-adventure movies". Like any patent, it's for a particular method of displaying and running a choose-your-own-adventure movies (or rather, a class of similar methods).
I'm curious what examples of prior art there are, and whether they actually fall under the claims made in the patent, or if they're simply similar int hat both are "choose-your-own-adventure"-type presentations.
Power is not measured in watts an hour. It's just watts. (Intensity is measured in W/m^2.)
0 dB (sound) is 10^-12 W/m^2. 60 dB is 10^-6 W/m^2. A 4 in. x 3 in. cell phone (with two sides) has an area of about 1.5 * 10^-2 m^2. So such an object subjected to 60 dB of background sound could capture up to 1.5 * 10^-8 W, which is 15 nW.
There is surprisingly little energy in sound. Take, for example, an object loud enough that the sound intensity at a distance of 10 m is 60 dB. The total sound energy output by that object is, then, 4*pi*(10 m)^2 * 10^-6 W/m^2 = about 1 mW.